Lockdep now has an integrated IRQs disabled/enabled sanity check. Just
use it instead of the ad-hoc RCU version.
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Paul E. McKenney
---
kernel/rcu/tree.c| 16
kernel/rcu
Use lockdep to check that IRQs are enabled or disabled as expected. This
way the sanity check only shows overhead when concurrency correctness
debug code is enabled.
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Paul E. McKenney
---
kernel
Use lockdep to check that IRQs are enabled or disabled as expected. This
way the sanity check only shows overhead when concurrency correctness
debug code is enabled.
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Paul E. McKenney
---
kernel
Use lockdep to check that IRQs are enabled or disabled as expected. This
way the sanity check only shows overhead when concurrency correctness
debug code is enabled.
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Paul E. McKenney
---
kernel
Use lockdep to check that IRQs are enabled or disabled as expected. This
way the sanity check only shows overhead when concurrency correctness
debug code is enabled.
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Paul E. McKenney
---
kernel
Use lockdep to check that IRQs are enabled or disabled as expected. This
way the sanity check only shows overhead when concurrency correctness
debug code is enabled.
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Paul E. McKenney
Cc: Tejun Heo
Use lockdep to check that IRQs are enabled or disabled as expected. This
way the sanity check only shows overhead when concurrency correctness
debug code is enabled.
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Paul E. McKenney
---
kernel
Use lockdep to check that IRQs are enabled or disabled as expected. This
way the sanity check only shows overhead when concurrency correctness
debug code is enabled.
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Paul E. McKenney
---
kernel
2017-10-27 15:58 UTC+02:00, Peter Zijlstra :
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 05:06:25AM -0700, tip-bot for Frederic Weisbecker
> wrote:
>> +isolcpus= [KNL,SMP] Isolate a given set of CPUs from disturbance.
>> +Format: [flag-list,]
>> +
>> +
2017-10-27 19:06 UTC+02:00, Ingo Molnar :
>
> * Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
>> 2017-10-27 15:58 UTC+02:00, Peter Zijlstra :
>> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 05:06:25AM -0700, tip-bot for Frederic
>> > Weisbecker
>> > wrote:
>> >> + isol
2017-10-27 20:21 UTC+02:00, Ingo Molnar :
>
> * Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
>> 2017-10-27 19:06 UTC+02:00, Ingo Molnar :
>> >
>> > * Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> >
>> >> 2017-10-27 15:58 UTC+02:00, Peter Zijlstra :
>> >>
From: Byungchul Park
Although llist provides proper APIs, they are not used. Make them used.
Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker
---
kernel/irq_work.c | 6 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/irq_work.c b
Document the latest updates on the isolcpus boot option. While at it,
let's also fix the details about the preferred way to isolate a set of
CPUs from the scheduler general domains. Cpusets offer a much better
interface to achieve that.
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Cc: Chris Metcal
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:32:59AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:29:04AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 20
2015-08-05 1:29 GMT+02:00 平松雅巳 / HIRAMATU，MASAMI
:
> Hi,
>
>> From: Frederic Weisbecker [mailto:fweis...@gmail.com]
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 08:32:40PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > Code on the kprobe blacklist doesn't want unexpected int3
>
: Frederic Weisbecker
---
include/linux/tick.h | 9 +
kernel/sched/core.c | 7 +--
2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/tick.h b/include/linux/tick.h
index 48d901f..e312219 100644
--- a/include/linux/tick.h
+++ b/include/linux/tick.h
@@ -147,11 +147,20
urbed (testing showed great results).
* Enforce assertion to make sure that we have housekeepers to handle
unbound timers, workqueues, timekeepers. Also improve the related
comments.
---
Thanks,
Frederic
---
Frederic Weisbecker (1):
nohz: Assert existing housekeepers when nohz full en
mprove the comments on housekeeper offlining prevention.
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Vatika Harlalka
Cc: Chris Metcalf
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Preeti U Murthy
Cc: Christoph Lameter
Cc: Paul E . McKenney
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker
---
kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 15
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 07:14:13PM +, Jiang, Yunhong wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 8b864ec..0902e4d 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -623,18 +623,21 @@ int get_nohz_timer_target(void)
> > int i, cpu = smp
oph Lameter
Cc: Mike Galbraith
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Dave Jones
Cc: Oleg Nesterov
Cc: Paul E. McKenney
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan
Cc: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git
rruth
> Cc: David Ahern
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker
> Cc: Jiri Olsa
> Cc: Namhyung Kim
> Cc: Stephane Eranian
> Cc: Wang Nan
> Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXaxk27zwlk
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-v8lq36aispvdwgxdmt9p9...@git.kernel.org
> Signed-of
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 08:32:02AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 05:21:23PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > This reverts commit 8cb9764fc88b41db11f251e8b2a0d006578b7eb4.
> >
> > We assumed that nohz full users always want scheduler isolation
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:55:24PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 10/12/2015 12:53 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> Is it worth starting to think about grouping things under the
> "task isolation" model somehow? "task_isolation_cpus=1-31"
> or some such for this, and then that just sets up the n
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 10:15:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 03:58:19PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > anyway, it's wrong for update_process_times() to assume 1 tick because
> > tick_irq_exit() -> tick_nohz_irq_exit() -> tick_nohz_full_update_tick()
> > -> tick_nohz_r
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:45:08PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > But yeah if you guys want to create a new parameter that gathers nohz
> > and isolcpus I think we can.
>
> Could we also add the rcu settings?
Ye
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:52:08AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:45:08PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > > But yeah if you guys want to create a new parameter that gathers nohz
>
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:04:36AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 07:45:35PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > I think it will take more than a single patch to rework all of
> > > update_process_times(). And we should also ask Thomas for his opini
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:37:18PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > find out the pending updates from update_process_times() itself and pass
> > > it to scheduler_tick() which is the one interested in it.
> >
> > tick_nohz_handler() calls tick_sched_handler() ?!
> >
> > And tick_nohz_handler()
unning,
breaking the static key optimizations.
This could be optimized with pulling irq_enter/exit to low level irq
code but that requires more thoughts.
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker
---
arch/x86/entry/common.c | 11 ++-
arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S | 11 ++-
2 files ch
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 05:18:27PM -0400, George Spelvin wrote:
> I'm going to give 4/4 a closer look to see if the races with timer
> expiration make more sense to me than last time around.
> (E.g. do CPU time signals even work in CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL?)
Those enqueued with timer_settime() do work. B
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 08:52:09PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> This reverts commit bb304a5c6fc63d8506cd9741a3a5f35b73605625.
>
> Because this patch leads to kthread zombies.
>
> call_usermodehelper_exec_sync() does fork() + wait() with "unignored"
> SIGCHLD. What we have missed is that this wor
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 05:18:19PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/15, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 08:52:09PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > This reverts commit bb304a5c6fc63d8506cd9741a3a5f35b73605625.
> > >
> > > B
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 04:37:57PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> call_usermodehelper_exec_sync() does fork() + wait() with "unignored"
> SIGCHLD. What we have missed is that this worker thread can have other
> children previously forked by call_usermodehelper_exec_work() without
> UMH_WAIT_PROC.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 06:32:17PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/15, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 04:37:57PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > call_usermodehelper_exec_sync() does fork() + wait() with "unignored"
> > >
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:31:14AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Frederic Weisbecker
> wrote:
> > From: Frederic Weisbecker
> > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 01:18:09 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH] x86: Don't call context tracking APIs on I
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 01:40:05PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 02:40:51PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > This thread had fairly intense discussion for two days, but then went dead.
> >
> > Do folks think this is worth discussing at the kernel summit?
>
> I am very in
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 04:36:06PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> While the current fallback to 1-second tick is still required for
> a number of kernel accounting tasks (e.g. vruntime, load balancing
> data, and load accounting), it's useful to be able to disable it
> for testing purposes. Paul Mc
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:28:04AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > There have been proposals to disable/tune the 1 Hz tick via debugfs which
> > I Nacked because once you give such an opportunity to the users, they
> >
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 04:36:02PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/isolation.c b/kernel/isolation.c
> new file mode 100644
> index ..9a73235db0bb
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/kernel/isolation.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
> +/*
> + * linux/kernel/isolation.c
> + *
> + * Implementa
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 02:21:12AM +, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:06 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <
> arnaldo.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > IMHO changing that order is not a good idea. Unless many users complained
> > > about it.
> >
> > Perhaps there are not that many
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 05:09:08PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 07:21:16PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Well, I would prefer to hear from regular users than random twitter
> > followers.
> > I could be wrong so lets ask some users first.
>
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 03:28:50PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> The caller callchain order is useful with --children option since it can
> show 'overview' style output, but other commands which don't use
> --children feature like 'perf script' or even 'perf report/top' without
> --children are be
w 'overview' style output, but other commands which don't use
> >> --children feature like 'perf script' or even 'perf report/top' without
> >> --children are better to keep caller order.
>
> Oops, there's a typo: s/caller order/c
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 06:47:36PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
> From: Byungchul Park
>
> Even though the cpu is non-idle when its tick is stoped in full NOHZ,
> current "update_cpu_load" code considers as if the cpu has been idle
> unconditionally. It's wrong. This patch makes the "upda
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:28:32PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> The --call-graph option is complex so we should provide better guide for
> users. Also change help message to be consistent with config option
> names. Now perf top will show help like below:
>
> $ perf top --call-graph
> Erro
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:44:05PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> (cc'ing peterz)
>
> Ooh, this is from irq_work which doesn't have much to do with
> workqueue. Peter?
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 05:16:11PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello, Tejun,
> >
> > As discussed last week, I am getting
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 12:24:27AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 11:50:22PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > [ 875.703227] [] tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu+0x44/0x50
> >
> > It happens in nohz full, but I'm not sure the guilty is nohz
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 09:58:40AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:03:51AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 12:24:27AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 11:50:22PM +0200, Frederi
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 11:56:33AM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:47:24 +0200
> Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 07:14:13PM +, Jiang, Yunhong wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 03:45:00PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 07:02:58PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 01:40:05PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 02:40:51PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wr
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 03:59:07PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:45:02PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > It is not invoked by anyone now, just remove it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yang Shi
>
> We should check with Frederic -- any plans to use this, Frederic?
> It was last t
Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker
---
include/linux/init_task.h | 3 +--
include/linux/sched.h | 19 +++
kernel/fork.c | 2 +-
kernel/sched/stats.h | 2 +-
kernel/time/posix-cpu-tim
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:41:08PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> >- * @checking_timer: true when a thread in the group is in the
> >- * process of checking for thread group timers.
> >- *
>
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 09:00:34AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:16:53PM -0700, Brendan Gregg escreveu:
> So are you advocating different defaults, one for --stdio (callee),
> another for --tui, --gtk (caller)?
>
> This is all configurable via ~/.perfconfig :-
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:06:51AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:19:50PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker escreveu:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 09:00:34AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:16:53PM -0700, Bren
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 04:31:44PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 10/21/2015 08:39 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >Can you *please* start a new thread with each posting?
> >
> >This is absolutely unmanageable.
>
> I've been explicitly threading the multiple patch series on purpose
> due to this tex
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:49:51AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 04:33:02AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > I personally (and I think this is the general LKML behaviour) use
> > in-reply-to
> > when I post a single patch that is a fix
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17:17AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/isolation.h b/include/linux/isolation.h
> new file mode 100644
> index ..fd04011b1c1e
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/linux/isolation.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
> +/*
> + * Task isolation related globa
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:18:42PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17:17AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > > +
> > > + while (READ_ONCE(dev->next_event.tv64) != KTIME_MAX) {
> >
&
t; without this commit it won't be possible to use the task_isolation
> > mode at all.
> >
> > Removing the 1-second cap was previously discussed (see link
> > below) and Thomas Gleixner observed that vruntime, load balancing
> > data, load accounting, and other t
gt;
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 09:10:41AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Now that nothing tests for PREEMPT_ACTIVE anymore, stop setting it.
>
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner
> Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
Great news!
Reviewed-by: Frederic We
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 09:10:43AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Since we stopped setting PREEMPT_ACTIVE, there is no need to mask it
> out of preempt_count() tests.
>
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner
> Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
Rev
Thomas Gleixner
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Good news as well.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.or
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 09:10:45AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Its unused, kill the definition.
>
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner
> Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker
--
To unsubscribe from this list
On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 02:04:44PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-10-03 at 10:52 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Ok, looks like a patch with good intentions but bad effects. Mind sending a
> > revert
> > patch, changelogged, signed off?
>
> No. They know.
The reason for this patch i
a Gleixner
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Ingo Molnar
---
kernel/softirq.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c
index 900dcfe..0980a81 100644
--- a/kernel/softirq.c
+++ b/kernel/softirq.c
@@ -386,7 +386,7
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 07:06:32PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> On 24.08.2018 16:30, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >> Can you try the one I posted in this thread:
> >>
> >>
> >> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.deb.2.21.1808240851420.1...@nanos.tec
y: Grygorii Strashko
> Reported-by: John Crispin
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
> Tested-by: Grygorii Strashko
> Tested-by: John Crispin
Acked-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Thanks for cooking the patch!
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 08:13:03AM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> Recently I started to get warning "NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 202" and
> I think it's related to mentioned commit (didn't bisect it yet).
> See log from suspending.
>
> I have no reason to think the fix is wrong, it may just have
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 09:01:02AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 05:57:06PM -0500, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> > > This patch was back ported to the Stable linux-4.14.y and It causes
> > > regression -
> > > flood of "NOHZ: local_so
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:01:35AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> > On 24.08.2018 06:12, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 08:13:03AM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> > >> Recently
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:10:44AM -0500, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> Yes. i do not see local_softirq_pending messages any more
>
> But one question, just to clarify, after patch "nohz: Fix missing tick reprog
> while interrupting inline timer softirq"
> the tick_nohz_irq_exit() will be called few
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 01:17:00PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 09:41:05PM +0200, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2018-07-18 at 09:37 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 06:01:51PM +0200, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On We
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 06:03:42PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 09:49 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > And here is an updated v4.15 patch with Marius's Reported-by and David's
> > fix to my lost exclamation point.
>
> Thanks. Are you sending the original version of that
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 09:20:33AM +0200, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-07-19 at 08:45 +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >
> > > My thought would be something like this:
> > >
> > > if (context_tracking_cpu_is_enabled())
> > > rcu_kvm_enter();
> > > else
> >
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 08:11:52PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 02:32:06AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 06:03:42PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 09:49 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 08:16:47AM +0200, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 2018-07-18 at 20:11 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > That is interesting. As I replied to Paul, we are already calling
> > > rcu_user_enter/exit() on guest_enter/exit_irqsoff(). So I'm wondering why
> > > you'
So the test checks for the wrong bit.
>
> Use BIT(TIMER_SOFTIRQ) instead.
>
> Fixes: 5d62c183f9e9 ("nohz: Prevent a timer interrupt storm in
> tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick()")
> Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Gleixner
Acked-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Thanks!
if we are in a hardirq
interrupting softirq. We can still figure out a way later to restore
this optimization while excluding inline softirq processing.
Reported-by: Anna-Maria Gleixner
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Ingo Molnar
---
kernel/softirq.c | 2 +-
1
On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 07:46:10PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Before updating the full nohz tick or the idle time on IRQ exit, we
> > check first if we are not in a nesting interrupt, whether the inner
> > interrupt is
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 07:24:00PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, Yury Norov wrote:
> > While here. I just wonder, on my system IRQs are sent to nohz_full CPUs
> > at every incoming ssh connection. The trace is like this:
> > [ 206.835533] Call trace:
> > [ 206.848411] [] du
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:24:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Linus Torvalds
> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:42:32 -0800
>
> > But I wonder if the test triggers the "lets run lots of workqueue
> > threads", and then the single-threaded user space just gets blown out
> > of the water by many k
2018-01-24 2:57 UTC+01:00, Frederic Weisbecker :
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:24:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Linus Torvalds
>> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:42:32 -0800
>>
>> > But I wonder if the test triggers the "lets run lots of workqueue
>>
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:32:13PM +, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-01-23 at 11:13 +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, 2018-01-19 at 16:46 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > As per Linus suggestion, this take doesn't limit the n
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 06:13:01PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So just saying "hey, ksoftirq is runnable - but maybe not running
> _now"" and ignoring softirqs entirely is just stupid. Even if we could
> easily do another small bunch of them, at least the non-networking
> ones.
>
> So maybe tha
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:41:30AM +0100, Anna-Maria Gleixner wrote:
> From: Thomas Gleixner
>
> The members migrate_enable and nohz_active in the timer/hrtimer per CPU
> bases have been introduced to avoid accessing global variables for these
> decisions.
>
> Still that results in a (cache hot)
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 08:19:49PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Frederic Weisbecker
> wrote:
> >
> > Makes sense, but I think you need to keep the TASK_RUNNING check.
>
> Yes, good point.
>
> > So perhaps it should be:
> >
t;
> Reported-by: Anna-Maria Gleixner
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
> Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Gleixner
Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker
ached
Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Cc: Dmitry Safonov
Cc: Eric Dumazet
Cc: Linus Torvalds
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Andrew Morton
Cc: David Miller
Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Levin Alexander
Cc: Paolo Abeni
Cc: Paul E. McKenney
Cc: Radu Rende
et the big picture.
It probably won't come free given the clock reads around softirq callbacks.
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frederic/linux-dynticks.git
softirq/poc
HEAD: 0e982634115283710d0801048e5a316def26f31d
Thanks,
Frederic
---
Frederic Weisbecker (2)
ksoftirqd is not removed as it is still needed for threaded IRQs
mode.
Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Cc: Dmitry Safonov
Cc: Eric Dumazet
Cc: Linus Torvalds
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Andrew Morton
Cc: David Miller
Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 09:13:42PM +, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 12:53 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Dmitry Safonov
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 12:40 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:34 PM, Dmitry S
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:35:54AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Some softirq vectors can be more CPU hungry than others. Especially
> networking may sometimes deal with packet storm and need more CPU than
> IRQ tail can offer without inducing scheduler latencies. In this case
>
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:22:58PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > asmlinkage __visible void __softirq_entry __do_softirq(void)
> > {
> > - unsigned long end = jiffies + MAX_SOFTIRQ_TIME;
> > + struct softirq_stat *sstat = this_cpu_ptr(&softirq_stat_cpu);
> > unsigned long old_
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:07:25AM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 06:35 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Some softirq vectors can be more CPU hungry than others. Especially
> > networking may sometimes deal with packet storm and need more CPU than
> &g
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:23:08AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 12:22 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > >
> > > Note that when I implemented TCP Small queues, I did experiments between
> > > using a work queue or a ta
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 04:15:04PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 15:58 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:23:08AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 12:22 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > >
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:12:32AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 6:34 AM, Frederic Weisbecker
> wrote:
> >
> > That's right. But I thought it was bit large for the stack:
> >
> > struct {
> > u64 time;
> >
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 08:28:06PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > Nah, a misunderstanding happened. RT that still offers full threading
> > > creates per-softirq threads per cpu. Th
1401 - 1500 of 4686 matches
Mail list logo
